login
Tebow pro-life Superbowl ad (Page 6)
-
No new posts
|
 2010-02-02 1:40 PM in reply to: #2650310 |
 Philadelphia, south of New York and north of DC |  Subject: RE: Tebow pro-life Superbowl adJBrashear - That's not to say I'm condoning the act, but kids are going to want to nail each other whether we approve of it or not. I think as humans we are wired for the good, the true, and the beautiful. Despite our best intentions, we all fall and sometimes do the bad, the false, and the ugly. And when we fail, we ought to love each other and help each other to get through that period and then stand up again. If we don't teach our children the highest ideals regarding human sexuality, then they will have that much more a hard time in reaching them. What is it saying to them if we don't think that they can reach for something lofty. Imagine teaching kids about cigarettes and saying, "I know that you'll end up smoking at some point anyway, so when you do be sure it's a filtered cigarette. Actually, carry one around in your pocket so it's there when you just can't resist the urge." Chastity is a great virtue. It means much more than abstinence. There is nothing lacking or absent in chastity well lived. It ought to be talked about more. Instead, it is a conversation that is often marginalized. Edited by dontracy 2010-02-02 1:44 PM |
| 2010-02-02 2:11 PM in reply to: #2639451 |
Expert  715  PA | Subject: RE: Tebow pro-life Superbowl ad i just love COJ discussions! really, i am sitting here smiling at my monitor! |
| 2010-02-02 2:37 PM in reply to: #2650191 |
Pro 4824 Houston | Subject: RE: Tebow pro-life Superbowl ad JBrashear - 2010-02-02 12:23 PM KeriKadi - 2010-02-02 11:17 AM If you take all the necessary precautions you CAN'T become pregnant because one of those precautions is not having sex! So you were a virgin until marriage, right?No. But I knew I could get pregnant and knew if that happened I wouldn't have an abortion even after I was raped at 14 years old. Killing a baby does not cure a rape. |
| 2010-02-02 2:38 PM in reply to: #2639451 |
Elite 5316 Alturas, California | Subject: RE: Tebow pro-life Superbowl ad Just let the man and the woman decide... what? Whether to have sex at a time when the woman is likely to concieve? If a man and woman act in a way that results in the creation of a child (sex->conception) they then can decide to murder the unwanted child? The child has no say in the matter? Can the man and the woman make the same decision when their teenager starts getting some attitude. Hun, I think we should just off our son and then we will not have to tollerate the unwanted attitude? What about if someone's father is in a nursing home and has a fat life insurance policy.... is it fine to just have them stop giving him food, overdoes him on medication? We are not talking about I decide to have chicken rather than a salad for dinner, we are talking killing someone? And ya we make the doctors kill the people in violation of their oaths to do no harm. That way we are not pulling the trigger ourselves. Millions of children are being killed. Some are being born partially, like their head is out just far enough so that their eyes can look at you, but not their nose or mouth, if their nose or mouth are out then you can't legally suck their brains out for research purposes, you have to stop at their eyes. All of the issues follow the same moral principal of not killing the innocent. Once that becomes socially/legally ok... where do you stop? Edited by Baowolf 2010-02-02 2:56 PM |
| 2010-02-02 3:23 PM in reply to: #2650426 |
Pro 4311 Texas | Subject: RE: Tebow pro-life Superbowl ad dontracy - 2010-02-02 1:40 PM JBrashear - That's not to say I'm condoning the act, but kids are going to want to nail each other whether we approve of it or not. I think as humans we are wired for the good, the true, and the beautiful. Despite our best intentions, we all fall and sometimes do the bad, the false, and the ugly. And when we fail, we ought to love each other and help each other to get through that period and then stand up again. If we don't teach our children the highest ideals regarding human sexuality, then they will have that much more a hard time in reaching them. What is it saying to them if we don't think that they can reach for something lofty. Imagine teaching kids about cigarettes and saying, "I know that you'll end up smoking at some point anyway, so when you do be sure it's a filtered cigarette. Actually, carry one around in your pocket so it's there when you just can't resist the urge." Chastity is a great virtue. It means much more than abstinence. There is nothing lacking or absent in chastity well lived. It ought to be talked about more. Instead, it is a conversation that is often marginalized. Why is sex being lumped into 'bad, false, & ugly'? And why is abstinence the ideal? Maybe it's the ideal for you, but that's a subjective assessment. You have the right to your opinion and can raise your children how you like, but to claim that your view is the ideal for everyone is a human conceit I'd be much more likely to lump into 'bad, false, & ugly' than the act of sex. Further, the age of consent has moved around as society has changed; 300 years ago 14 year olds were marrying & starting their own families, now it's happening much later due to changes in society. It was easier to be a virgin until marriage back then because most kids were just starting to come into their own, sexually speaking. If anything, it's harder for them now because they're being told to wait until a few years later even though most of them(at least from the male side) are so flooded with hormones that they can't see straight. Society's changes have actually made it harder on them. The cigarette argument isn't apples to apples because humans aren't hard-wired to smoke from birth. Procreation is one of the strongest impulses in nature, probably 2nd only to survival. People are going to have sex, it's coded into your DNA(regardless of where you believe that originated, it's still true). We're wired to procreate, all the heart to heart chats you can have with your kids isn't going to change their DNA. |
| 2010-02-02 3:28 PM in reply to: #2650724 |
| Philadelphia, south of New York and north of DC | Subject: RE: Tebow pro-life Superbowl ad JBrashear - Why is sex being lumped into 'bad, false, & ugly'? I think sex is good, true, and beautiful when rightly understood and practiced. Perhaps one of the highest forms of goodness, truth, and beauty. Of course I understand that the definition of what is good, true, and beautiful regarding sex can't be imposed, only proposed. At the same time, I don't think the definition is a private matter. It is one that a healthy civil society ought to be exploring. Sadly, the free love movement seems to think it has the market cornered in this regard and seems to often try to stifle debate. The cigarette analogy was just that, an analogy. I hope the deeper meaning came through the surface details. |
| 2010-02-02 3:29 PM in reply to: #2644073 |
Veteran 840 | Subject: RE: Tebow pro-life Superbowl ad possum - 2010-01-29 11:48 PM And now Haiti. The poorest country in our hemisphere that already had 380,000 orphans before the hurricane. And the country is in unspeakable conditions and any paperwork that was in place to get some of those kids out to families who will love them is long gone. And the corruption was mind boggling BEFORE the hurricane. Now we are being told of human trafficking and organ mining in a place where the "least of these" have already been exploited. So, Mr Tebow, Mr Dobson et al. Please. Help those babies already here. You have the money, and you have the votes. Let's get back to basics and feed and heal our children. Here is a portion from Focus on the Family's Website  This is what the Link goes to...  And here is what Planned Parenthood has on Haiti on their website  Nothing I could find other than a memorial to a single murder a decade ago and a call for health care reform. |
| 2010-02-02 3:33 PM in reply to: #2650730 |
Pro 4311 Texas | Subject: RE: Tebow pro-life Superbowl ad dontracy - 2010-02-02 3:28 PM JBrashear - Why is sex being lumped into 'bad, false, & ugly'? I think sex is good, true, and beautiful when rightly understood and practiced. Perhaps one of the highest forms of goodness, truth, and beauty. Of course I understand that the definition of what is good, true, and beautiful regarding sex can't be imposed, only proposed. At the same time, I don't think the definition is a private matter. It is one that a healthy civil society ought to be exploring. Sadly, the free love movement seems to think it has the market cornered in this regard and seems to often try to stifle debate. The cigarette analogy was just that, an analogy. I hope the deeper meaning came through the surface details. I don't mind exploring the definition, but if you're expecting to have society settle on one definition you might make sure you're not in the middle of a field of windmills.  |
| 2010-02-02 3:45 PM in reply to: #2650746 |
| Philadelphia, south of New York and north of DC | Subject: RE: Tebow pro-life Superbowl ad JBrashear - I don't mind exploring the definition, but if you're expecting to have society settle on one definition you might make sure you're not in the middle of a field of windmills. Me and Sancho are good to go. |
| 2010-02-02 4:53 PM in reply to: #2650733 |
Champion 5529 Nashville, TN | Subject: RE: Tebow pro-life Superbowl ad Indiana_Geoff - 2010-02-02 4:29 PM possum - 2010-01-29 11:48 PM And now Haiti. The poorest country in our hemisphere that already had 380,000 orphans before the hurricane. And the country is in unspeakable conditions and any paperwork that was in place to get some of those kids out to families who will love them is long gone. And the corruption was mind boggling BEFORE the hurricane. Now we are being told of human trafficking and organ mining in a place where the "least of these" have already been exploited. So, Mr Tebow, Mr Dobson et al. Please. Help those babies already here. You have the money, and you have the votes. Let's get back to basics and feed and heal our children. Here is a portion from Focus on the Family's Website This is what the Link goes to... And here is what Planned Parenthood has on Haiti on their website Nothing I could find other than a memorial to a single murder a decade ago and a call for health care reform. This is a pretty ignorant argument on your part. First, Hollis didn't compare Planned Parenthood's efforts to that of Focus on the Family. That is an ASSUMPTION on your part. Her comments were a plea to Dodson and Tebow to put their money where their mouth is instead of airing a commercial (her opinion) Second, the two groups have totally different approaches to how they carry out their missions. Who is to say which one is right or wrong? Third, IMO, your example is exactly what she is talking about. Focus has the money ($2.5 million for a commercial) and their efforts for Haiti include a FAQ on their home page. Better yet, the links just direct you to other organizations. Why isn't Focus down their if their mission is to repair broken families and communities? (I am actually fairly certain they have some presence down in Haiti and have done great things. The poster made no attempt to uncover any of those) And for the record, a quick google search will yield results where PP did make plans to go down to Haiti. And they were slammed by the opposition. Better yet, I encourage you to google International Planned Parenthood & Haiti. I will save you the hassle: https://secure.ga0.org/02/haiti Maybe you should do some research before you try to make a credible argument. |
| 2010-02-02 5:10 PM in reply to: #2639451 |
Champion 11989 Philly 'burbs | Subject: RE: Tebow pro-life Superbowl ad Did anyone watch the Senior Bowl? I did not but did read that TT didn't do so well. I don't know if he'll be a good Pro QB, but I think he could be an awesome tight end or H back. He reportedly had strep throat so that may have been a factor in his performance this weekend, but doesn't explain his basic mechanics throughout his career. Some team may take a flyer on him at QB, but the days of taking a few years for a Pro QB to develop are seemingly gone for good. At least if they are high draft picks. |
| 2010-02-02 6:33 PM in reply to: #2650970 |
Expert 1158 Chicagoland | Subject: RE: Tebow pro-life Superbowl ad mrbbrad - 2010-02-02 5:10 PM Did anyone watch the Senior Bowl? I did not but did read that TT didn't do so well. I don't know if he'll be a good Pro QB, but I think he could be an awesome tight end or H back. He reportedly had strep throat so that may have been a factor in his performance this weekend, but doesn't explain his basic mechanics throughout his career. Some team may take a flyer on him at QB, but the days of taking a few years for a Pro QB to develop are seemingly gone for good. At least if they are high draft picks. Tebow? Who? Yeah, I watched him, not very good in practice, a little shaky in the game. Maybe he was nervous, but he seemed pretty lazy with the ball and his throws. I guess he is not in the Swamp anymore. Now back to the OP. Who cares if CBS shows the commercial, does anyway watch the commercials? It would be nice if they showed no commercials and the ad revenue was sent to Haiti or better yet, to the schools for better sex education. Or maybe to repeal the death penalty, you know the practice where we kill people without their say. No one likes abortion. I have never heard of anyone skipping with joy to their appointment. I'd rather a woman make the choice to keep her baby but without better education, better opportunites for childchare, and sympathy for their situation, she'll choose what is best for her at that moment. I don't think it is my choice, or your's, or the government's. |
| 2010-02-02 7:07 PM in reply to: #2650970 |
Elite 4547 | Subject: RE: Tebow pro-life Superbowl ad mrbbrad - 2010-02-02 6:10 PM Did anyone watch the Senior Bowl? I did not but did read that TT didn't do so well. I don't know if he'll be a good Pro QB, but I think he could be an awesome tight end or H back. He reportedly had strep throat so that may have been a factor in his performance this weekend, but doesn't explain his basic mechanics throughout his career. Some team may take a flyer on him at QB, but the days of taking a few years for a Pro QB to develop are seemingly gone for good. At least if they are high draft picks. I like Tim Tebow. He seems like a nice guy. I happen to be personally pro-life (to an extent), but politically I'm very pro-choice. I still like Tim Tebow. I like anybody who tells people it's a good idea to save sex for marriage. I'd like him more if he told the anti-abortion crowd to lay off the verbal abuse of women who choose to have an abortion. What good does it do to harass people coming out of PP? Tebow will (likely) be an awful NFL qb (I have yet to hear an NFL scout say good things), but a team in desperate need of putting fannies in seats (I'm looking at you Jacksonville) will draft him as a tight end/gadget player in the 3rd or 4th round. He's got a big fan base in the Christian community and don't think NFL teams aren't drooling at the prospect of selling thousands of Tebow jerseys. |
| 2010-02-02 8:49 PM in reply to: #2639451 |
Pro 6767 the Alabama part of Pennsylvania | Subject: RE: Tebow pro-life Superbowl ad I respect the views of Dontracy and Keri and the others who are adamantly and consistently prolife in the views. But I think it's important to interject another issue in the Tebow case in particular. His mother was diagnosed with placenta abruptio, a condition which often leads to the death not only of the fetus but also of the mother. While it is very fortunate for the Tebow's that this was not the outcome in this case, it is not the common outcome. Unlike issues like abstinance, or population control, or eugenics, or similar side issues, this really was a case that could be made about saving lives. I know that one of the things that many pro-lifers like to say is something akin to "we don't hear from the unborn chldren". I would add that we don't hear from the dead mothers. That is a very very very bad outcome, especially if there are other children in the home. I am still haunted by the death of a woman during my OB rotation as a student, who left behind a young child and grieving husband. So while I would prefer that people not use abortions as a means of birth control, I feel equally strongly that having a choice is critical. And I believe that if the Tebow's goal is to prevent people from being able to have a choice, especially in circumstances identical to theirs, they are worse than the doctor who advised them to have an abortion, since he only offered a medical opinion, and did not impose it on them. |
| 2010-02-02 9:29 PM in reply to: #2639451 |
Pro 4824 Houston | Subject: RE: Tebow pro-life Superbowl ad I understand what you are saying Gearboy, it is obvious seeing this first hand made an impression on you. As a Mother of 5 children I know if my life was in danger my husband would feel the same way you do. However, I would not. The child in my womb would be as much my child as my 2 year old, 17 year old and the three in between. Not everyone feels this way, not even those who consider themselves pro-life all feel this way but it is my personal stance and maybe the Tebow's as well. My life isn't any more important or valuable than my unborn child and I would never want any of my children to think their sister or brother was less important than I am because what would that say to them? Inside or outside the womb makes no difference of importance/value to me. |
| 2010-02-02 9:36 PM in reply to: #2651305 |
| Philadelphia, south of New York and north of DC | Subject: RE: Tebow pro-life Superbowl ad gearboy - His mother was diagnosed with placenta abruptio, a condition which often leads to the death not only of the fetus but also of the mother. While it is very fortunate for the Tebow's that this was not the outcome in this case, it is not the common outcome. Unlike issues like abstinance, or population control, or eugenics, or similar side issues, this really was a case that could be made about saving lives. I know that one of the things that many pro-lifers like to say is something akin to "we don't hear from the unborn chldren". I would add that we don't hear from the dead mothers. That is a very very very bad outcome, especially if there are other children in the home. That is a good point. Back on page 4 of this thread I posted that after learning some of the details of the Tebow case, it seemed that it might have fallen under the principle of "double effect" if Pam Tebow had elected to protect herself from the risk of bleeding to death and Tim Tebow had died in the process. It's important to keep in mind that there is a difference between "direct abortion" and "abortion". The first means that the primary intent is to kill the child. The second may come about because of a secondary effect, with the primary intent being, for example, to keep a woman from hemorrhaging to death and keep her alive. By the standard I rely on, the first is immoral while the second is not. The first ought to be illegal, the second not. What Pam Tebow did was a heroic act, one that I believe my wife would make as well. However, it is not one that any serious proponent of changing current abortion laws would require a mother to do by force of law.
Edited by dontracy 2010-02-02 9:43 PM |
| 2010-02-02 9:41 PM in reply to: #2639451 |
| Philadelphia, south of New York and north of DC | Subject: RE: Tebow pro-life Superbowl ad There are no cases that I'm aware of where "direct abortion" is required to protect the life of the mother.
|
| 2010-02-07 9:19 PM in reply to: #2639451 |
Master 1585 Folsom (Sacramento), CA | Subject: RE: Tebow pro-life Superbowl ad So, does anyone else agree that the media wasted 2 weeks talking about this ad? I didn't see an anti-abortion ad, I saw a website using Tim Tebow to advertise itself. I didn't find the commercial offensive at all. I can see why CBS accepted this one and and not the ad from mancrunch.com. The other ad showed two men making out. I honestly don't think that any network would run an ad showing two men making out during prime time hours. I think that if the ad had been tamer, it would have stood a far greater chance of getting approved. Then again, they probably got the best deal out of it. They didn't have to pony up a couple million and they still got their website's name out there. |
| 2010-02-07 9:25 PM in reply to: #2639451 |
| Iron Donkey 38643 , Wisconsin | Subject: RE: Tebow pro-life Superbowl ad I wrote question marks down on my commercials list, so it meant that it was really, really lame or something. It must have been quite lame since I don't remember what it was for or all about. |
| 2010-02-07 10:07 PM in reply to: #2660423 |
| Subject: RE: Tebow pro-life Superbowl ad uclamatt2007 - 2010-02-07 7:19 PM So, does anyone else agree that the media wasted 2 weeks talking about this ad? I didn't see an anti-abortion ad, I saw a website using Tim Tebow to advertise itself. I didn't find the commercial offensive at all. I can see why CBS accepted this one and and not the ad from mancrunch.com. The other ad showed two men making out. I honestly don't think that any network would run an ad showing two men making out during prime time hours. I think that if the ad had been tamer, it would have stood a far greater chance of getting approved. Then again, they probably got the best deal out of it. They didn't have to pony up a couple million and they still got their website's name out there. x2. I actually thought the ad was well done |
| 2010-02-07 11:48 PM in reply to: #2639451 |
Expert 1690 | Subject: RE: Tebow pro-life Superbowl ad Ya more media hype blowing up a story that wasnt that big of a deal, I actually liked the commercial, i was more offended that he tried to hit his mom!! |
| 2010-02-08 6:43 AM in reply to: #2639451 |
Champion 6931 Bellingham, Washington | Subject: RE: Tebow pro-life Superbowl ad Nice Tackle Timmy. |
| 2010-02-08 7:30 AM in reply to: #2660655 |
| Philadelphia, south of New York and north of DC | Subject: RE: Tebow pro-life Superbowl ad That was such an offensive ad. No wonder pro choice groups were protesting it. A little bit of the spin out there this morning is that the ad promotes violence against women!
Edited by dontracy 2010-02-08 7:33 AM |
| 2010-02-08 7:31 AM in reply to: #2660423 |
Champion 14571 the alamo city, Texas | Subject: RE: Tebow pro-life Superbowl ad uclamatt2007 - 2010-02-07 10:19 PM So, does anyone else agree that the media wasted 2 weeks talking about this ad? I didn't see an anti-abortion ad, I saw a website using Tim Tebow to advertise itself. I didn't find the commercial offensive at all. I can see why CBS accepted this one and and not the ad from mancrunch.com. The other ad showed two men making out. I honestly don't think that any network would run an ad showing two men making out during prime time hours. I think that if the ad had been tamer, it would have stood a far greater chance of getting approved. Then again, they probably got the best deal out of it. They didn't have to pony up a couple million and they still got their website's name out there. this ad didn't even MENTION anything about pam choosing not to abort or anything. it was a little sweet, and mostly funny. if ANYONE could have messed up this opportunity, it was focus on the family, and they did well. |
| 2010-02-08 9:04 AM in reply to: #2651377 |
Pro 6767 the Alabama part of Pennsylvania | Subject: RE: Tebow pro-life Superbowl ad KeriKadi - 2010-02-02 10:29 PM I understand what you are saying Gearboy, it is obvious seeing this first hand made an impression on you. As a Mother of 5 children I know if my life was in danger my husband would feel the same way you do. However, I would not. The child in my womb would be as much my child as my 2 year old, 17 year old and the three in between. Not everyone feels this way, not even those who consider themselves pro-life all feel this way but it is my personal stance and maybe the Tebow's as well. My life isn't any more important or valuable than my unborn child and I would never want any of my children to think their sister or brother was less important than I am because what would that say to them? Inside or outside the womb makes no difference of importance/value to me. I'm jumping back in on this one, to offer a different spin on what you are saying. I get the issue of valuing all the children equally. But if you die in childbirth, due to preventable issues, it is not just your life that is affected. I firmly believe that having parents is preferable to not having them. And so your children that survive are essentially being told that their needs are less critical than those of the unborn/possible never born sibling. In addition, the grief that the husband feels will affect his ability to be emotionally available to the surviving children. We don't have the data on this, but the data on depressed mothers tells us that that lack of emotional availability has some significant long term effects on kids. I would find it hard to believe that the actual loss of the mother coupled with the emotional loss of a father would be less significant. The reality for those of us who become parents is that we are in fact, very important to our children. And therefore need to adjust our risk-taking behaviors accordingly. I don't know what the best answer is. I can imagine pros and cons of simply taking a "no abortion ever under any circumstances" approach as you would do (and again, I see the consistency in your stance); discussion with spouse (since he is affected directly by the choice ultimately made - is the risk 10% or 90% or 100% of dying? does it make a difference? what about 90% chance of both lives being lost versus 100% chance of loss of baby with 2% risk loss of mother?); and involving the kids, since they are also affected (but imagine living with whatever choice you advocated for at the age of 7 or 12 or even 17). I am glad we have not faced that decision, and never will at this point in our lives. But I would hope at the very least mrs gearboy would discuss it with me, since I would also be affected by the choice. In the same way that I agreed to never ride a motorcycle if I wanted to stay married (because she is distressed by the possibility of my being injured), I would want to have some say in choices that affect her staying alive as well. |
|
|
|
|
View profile
Add to friends
Go to training log
Go to race log
Send a message
View album
CONNECT WITH FACEBOOK